Unlock Editor’s Digest for free
FT editor Roula Khalaf selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Bashar al-Assad issued a statement this week, insisting that his escape from Syria was not pre-planned but an emergency evacuation organized by Moscow. However, the way the Syrian dictator left is much less worrying than how brutally ruled. What the hundreds of thousands of families of those murdered, missing, imprisoned, raped or tortured by their regime want to see above all else is for Assad and his entourage to be brought to justice for the terrible number of atrocities committed throughout of decades.
Among the most harrowing videos and stories since Assad’s overthrow are those of emaciated prisoners being freed from the notorious Saydnaya Prison and other prisons. Families have been wandering the wards and reviewing files and photographs for any trace of their loved ones.
Syrians deserve justice. But a major complication of the effort to hold Assad, his family and his henchmen accountable is that many have already fled. Some senior generals and officials have reportedly escaped to neighboring Arab countries or gone into hiding in their hometowns.
The immediate priority must be to obtain evidence that can be used to build cases against them for the atrocities committed during the Assad family’s more than 50 years of dynastic rule. The Commission for International Justice and Accountability, a non-governmental body, has already accumulated 1.1 million internal documents and testimonies of thousands of victims, for use in future trials. The International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism, a quasi-fiscal body established by the UN in 2016, has been collecting evidence also. But Syria’s interim leadership, which has vowed to bring perpetrators of atrocities to justice, urgently needs to create an independent body to safeguard the paper trail left by Assad’s murderous bureaucracy.
The next question is where this evidence could be heard. Syria is not a member of the International Criminal Court, and Russia and China are likely to veto any UN Security Council resolution granting jurisdiction to the court. An alternative is an agreement with the UN to establish an ad hoc court, similar to those in Sierra Leone or Kosovo, operating under international law. Trials could be carried out under national law, but Syria’s new leaders would have to demonstrate that they respect the rule of law and form an inclusive and representative administration, and even then the Syrian justice system may lack the capacity and credibility to hear those cases.
One scenario for Syria could be an international court supported by a transitional justice process (following examples in South Africa, Chile and Rwanda) that combines judicial cases with non-judicial measures, such as truth commissions aimed at promoting community healing.
Even if a trial could be established, could Assad himself ever be put on trial? Vladimir Putin of Russia, himself subject to a ICC arrest warrant for alleged war crimes in Ukraine, for now it seems unlikely that he will collaborate in the delivery of another leader to international justice. But Assad may still end up somewhere else, and Putin’s regime may also disappear.
Ultimately, it is up to Syrians to choose the most appropriate model for seeking legal redress. There are more immediate tasks, including feeding an impoverished people and stabilizing the government, something that is far from guaranteed. However, some realistic promise of justice for Assad-era crimes may be vital to beginning to build the rule of law. Experience elsewhere suggests that the longer legal accountability for atrocities is delayed, the longer it takes for society to come to terms with what happened. Seeing the leaders and accomplices of the previous regime put on trial must be a key part of Syria’s awakening from its long national nightmare.